Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Who owns the glossy screen Macbook Pro?
- Thread starter madisonm
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
2hvy4grvty - if 'glossy = more accurate' how come every industry standard/pro display uses matt? (and i'm not talking cinema displays, im talking about the screens us 'pros' use) I'll give you a clue, it's not so because designers hate working indoors.
I've worked in the design & print industry for nearly 10 years and never seen a single person worth their salt working on colour accurate work with a glossy screen. I'm guessing you've had no experience in this but glossy screens are designed to be contrasty and make colours 'pop' so they look nice for kids using imovie, which means no, they're not accurate.
Simple answer to the argument, google the best colour reproduction displays on the market and see what you come up with. Find any glossy in the top 3, i'll eat my hat and you win.
I've worked in the design & print industry for nearly 10 years and never seen a single person worth their salt working on colour accurate work with a glossy screen. I'm guessing you've had no experience in this but glossy screens are designed to be contrasty and make colours 'pop' so they look nice for kids using imovie, which means no, they're not accurate.
Simple answer to the argument, google the best colour reproduction displays on the market and see what you come up with. Find any glossy in the top 3, i'll eat my hat and you win.
Last edited:
If you've worked in the design industry and they've told you these things, and you went ahead and believed it, I feel bad for you.
Glossy isn't designed to "artificially increase contrast", it's meant to give you the full unadultered image. Compared to the matte screens, they have "more contrast" by principle alone.
Ever see a shower door? Compare that to a window. One is anti glare (guess which!), but at the same time, gives an "altered" image of the other side. The other is "glare", but offers an unobstructed view. Which one offers more "accuracy"? I don't know how much dumber I can make it so that you'd understand.
I can cite thousands of credible scientific sources to back me, and all you've got is a subjective bestselling list?
EDIT: I'll try again, and maybe this time you might try and think outside that little box of yours and accept reality. I'm having my doubts about you being in the design industry at all with such amateur responses, since it's a very straight forward matter of fact.
The screen is a barrier. It in itself is nothing but a protective layer between you and the actual light being emitted. The "true" colors are whatever's on the other side, aka the light. That is "TRUE" colors, whether or not it's reflective of whatever it's emulating is another point of debate that's even farther over your head.
Now, are we clear? Light -> screen -> your eyes. That's the path of travel. So, the truest colors you can possibly see is with no cover, just your eyes and the light. Can we agree on that? What's possibly more pure than... nothing? Ok. Good.
Matte screen - what is it? It's a light scattering surface. What the hell does that mean? See picture in my previous post. It diffuses light. What does diffuse mean? Let's not get you too confused. It's a complicated form of the word "change" or "alter". Translation? The "true" light, before it enters your eyes, gets "altered" or "changed" by the matte display because of the roughened surface.
Glossy screen - what is it? A smooth surface. It's basically one giant polarizer (you should be familiar with this, it's YOUR JOB), which basically lets light pass through freely, giving you an unchanged view of the image being presented by the display. Light isn't being diffused.
The smoother a surface is, the less diffusion would occur. The less diffusion would occur, the less an image would be altered. On the other side of the coin, less diffusion = more glare.
Have you ever used a matte mirror? It kinda sucks. It "alters" light quite a bit.
ARE WE CLEAR?
Have fun eating that hat.
EDIT2: As for why pros use matte screens, it's pretty obvious. Never mind the fact that a matte screen can't be used under direct sunlight anyway, so that's null, but there's also the fact that.... there's light IN DOORS. I know right, scary.
You can get glare in doors; in fact, I'm willing to bet more than 80/90/99% of matte users got it for the glare that occurs indoors (a poorly tinted window, any light source in the room tbh). If there's light, there's the chance for glare. Very little buy matte specifically to use the damn thing outside, since it's hard even for matte screens and apple's 300 nits to compete with the SUN. I should know, I've tried.
Glossy isn't designed to "artificially increase contrast", it's meant to give you the full unadultered image. Compared to the matte screens, they have "more contrast" by principle alone.
Ever see a shower door? Compare that to a window. One is anti glare (guess which!), but at the same time, gives an "altered" image of the other side. The other is "glare", but offers an unobstructed view. Which one offers more "accuracy"? I don't know how much dumber I can make it so that you'd understand.
I can cite thousands of credible scientific sources to back me, and all you've got is a subjective bestselling list?
EDIT: I'll try again, and maybe this time you might try and think outside that little box of yours and accept reality. I'm having my doubts about you being in the design industry at all with such amateur responses, since it's a very straight forward matter of fact.
The screen is a barrier. It in itself is nothing but a protective layer between you and the actual light being emitted. The "true" colors are whatever's on the other side, aka the light. That is "TRUE" colors, whether or not it's reflective of whatever it's emulating is another point of debate that's even farther over your head.
Now, are we clear? Light -> screen -> your eyes. That's the path of travel. So, the truest colors you can possibly see is with no cover, just your eyes and the light. Can we agree on that? What's possibly more pure than... nothing? Ok. Good.
Matte screen - what is it? It's a light scattering surface. What the hell does that mean? See picture in my previous post. It diffuses light. What does diffuse mean? Let's not get you too confused. It's a complicated form of the word "change" or "alter". Translation? The "true" light, before it enters your eyes, gets "altered" or "changed" by the matte display because of the roughened surface.
Glossy screen - what is it? A smooth surface. It's basically one giant polarizer (you should be familiar with this, it's YOUR JOB), which basically lets light pass through freely, giving you an unchanged view of the image being presented by the display. Light isn't being diffused.
The smoother a surface is, the less diffusion would occur. The less diffusion would occur, the less an image would be altered. On the other side of the coin, less diffusion = more glare.
Have you ever used a matte mirror? It kinda sucks. It "alters" light quite a bit.
ARE WE CLEAR?
Have fun eating that hat.
EDIT2: As for why pros use matte screens, it's pretty obvious. Never mind the fact that a matte screen can't be used under direct sunlight anyway, so that's null, but there's also the fact that.... there's light IN DOORS. I know right, scary.
You can get glare in doors; in fact, I'm willing to bet more than 80/90/99% of matte users got it for the glare that occurs indoors (a poorly tinted window, any light source in the room tbh). If there's light, there's the chance for glare. Very little buy matte specifically to use the damn thing outside, since it's hard even for matte screens and apple's 300 nits to compete with the SUN. I should know, I've tried.
Last edited:
Lol, I love geeks like you on these forums who get crazy, I could read it all day so please carry on 
You're avoiding the fact that the most accurate colour reproduction displays are matt. If you want to get the best colour reproduction you'll surely buy one of these? You can give me all the scientific copy and paste you want, but its surely this simple.
I've got better things to do than argue with you dude im just telling the op what 95% of people i've met + worked with in the design industry use.
You're avoiding the fact that the most accurate colour reproduction displays are matt. If you want to get the best colour reproduction you'll surely buy one of these? You can give me all the scientific copy and paste you want, but its surely this simple.
I've got better things to do than argue with you dude im just telling the op what 95% of people i've met + worked with in the design industry use.
Glossy screens aren't colour accurate, your straight out wrong, glare has nothing to do with matte or gloss.
Sure thing champ. You're making this too easy.
Fans of matte displays can point out that top-of-the-line desktop monitors for digital photography such as the HP DreamColor LP2480zx or Eizo ColorEdge CG301W are matte designs. Again, given that color quality is dependent on the LCD panel and backlighting technology more than the polarizer, monitors such as the LP2480zx are arguably among the best of the best. On the other hand, fans of glossy displays can point out that flagship digital mammography displays such as the Eizo RadiForce GS520 are designed with glossy screens because the superior sharpness (MTF) over matte screens allows radiologists to better detect more subtle changes in the breast and identify breast cancer at earlier stages.
So, when it’s comes to making a life or death decision, glossy wins.
Cheers mate.
Fans of matte displays can point out that top-of-the-line desktop monitors for digital photography such as the HP DreamColor LP2480zx or Eizo ColorEdge CG301W are matte designs. Again, given that color quality is dependent on the LCD panel and backlighting technology more than the polarizer, monitors such as the LP2480zx are arguably among the best of the best. On the other hand, fans of glossy displays can point out that flagship digital mammography displays such as the Eizo RadiForce GS520 are designed with glossy screens because the superior sharpness (MTF) over matte screens allows radiologists to better detect more subtle changes in the breast and identify breast cancer at earlier stages.
So, when it’s comes to making a life or death decision, glossy wins.
Cheers mate.
and the tangent prize goes too...
colours have never been life or death, just quite a bit more important than sharpness, so just to check i wasn't going crazy i searched the colour accuracy question (look what you made me do!) and it seems most people are agreeing with me.
You dont sound like the kind of guy that's ever wrong, so lets just agree to disagree and stop talking ish in this dudes post.
now shout down and see if your mum will bring some more gatorade and chocolate biscuits to your room, all your forum arguing must be playing hell with your blood sugar levels!
colours have never been life or death, just quite a bit more important than sharpness, so just to check i wasn't going crazy i searched the colour accuracy question (look what you made me do!) and it seems most people are agreeing with me.
You dont sound like the kind of guy that's ever wrong, so lets just agree to disagree and stop talking ish in this dudes post.
now shout down and see if your mum will bring some more gatorade and chocolate biscuits to your room, all your forum arguing must be playing hell with your blood sugar levels!
You tried to argue that glossy is colour accurate, this is not true, i do not own a matte MBP. Personally i prefer glossy screen, at home i have two screen in my room my MBP and a Dell Ultrasharp 24" the MBP has a better pixel density but it is nice to not get glare on my main screen and if i was ever to do colour accurate work i would do it on the ultra sharp.
Thanks bro. Matte is nicer to work on. Easier on the eyes. That's why I bought it.
Color reality? Nah.
There is more misinformation about the merits and limitations of glossy versus matte displays than any other topic in notebook computing. Lets start with the basics that everyone agrees with: glossy screens have more vivid color and contrast while matte screens are better at rejecting reflections from ambient light.
A matte LCD display has an anti-glare coating and waffled surface that diffuses and scatters ambient light. This minimizes the reflections that occur, but as a result, the screen can be easier to read across a wider range of environments. The scatter of the light has its own consequences. Diffused light from ambient light as well as the backlight will lighten the black tone and make the screen surface look hazy and washed out.
A glossy screen does not use any diffusion at all. Instead, a standard polarizer allows light to freely pass through the filter. Since there is no scatter of the backlight, colors are more intense and accurate, and blacks are also deeper. However, the lack of ambient light diffusion means that surrounding light can result in noticeable reflections.
In controlled lighting environments, there is very little difference in color accuracy between the two types of monitors when using a colorimeter. In uncontrolled lighting, the glossy screen has better color accuracy except for the parts of the screen with bright reflections. The matte screen has less of a difference in the image, but has poorer color accuracy due to the diffusion of the light producing haze over a larger area.
********** evidence. They're everywhere!
Color reality? Nah.
There is more misinformation about the merits and limitations of glossy versus matte displays than any other topic in notebook computing. Lets start with the basics that everyone agrees with: glossy screens have more vivid color and contrast while matte screens are better at rejecting reflections from ambient light.
A matte LCD display has an anti-glare coating and waffled surface that diffuses and scatters ambient light. This minimizes the reflections that occur, but as a result, the screen can be easier to read across a wider range of environments. The scatter of the light has its own consequences. Diffused light from ambient light as well as the backlight will lighten the black tone and make the screen surface look hazy and washed out.
A glossy screen does not use any diffusion at all. Instead, a standard polarizer allows light to freely pass through the filter. Since there is no scatter of the backlight, colors are more intense and accurate, and blacks are also deeper. However, the lack of ambient light diffusion means that surrounding light can result in noticeable reflections.
In controlled lighting environments, there is very little difference in color accuracy between the two types of monitors when using a colorimeter. In uncontrolled lighting, the glossy screen has better color accuracy except for the parts of the screen with bright reflections. The matte screen has less of a difference in the image, but has poorer color accuracy due to the diffusion of the light producing haze over a larger area.
********** evidence. They're everywhere!
Glossy, I think mine is one of those kinds and I love the colour vibrancy. I haven't seen anything that compares as regards to monitors. It's one of my favourite features about my mac.
I'm not weighting in on whos right, or what screen is better but...
2hvy4grvty is the only poster that has tried to use facts combined with logic to back his argument. And until someone has a counter argument I'd say damnit I think he's right.
He said, she said doesn't really cut it in a supposed logical debate.
2hvy4grvty is the only poster that has tried to use facts combined with logic to back his argument. And until someone has a counter argument I'd say damnit I think he's right.
He said, she said doesn't really cut it in a supposed logical debate.
The colours on glossy screens are far far too saturated and the blacks are far too dark.
Try calibrating both screens, then look at a pantone block in illustrator and compare it to the pantone book. I know it's never THAT good, but the anti-glare's are always a clear winner
Try calibrating both screens, then look at a pantone block in illustrator and compare it to the pantone book. I know it's never THAT good, but the anti-glare's are always a clear winner
"Blacks far too dark."
Comment speaks for itself. What is true black? 0 nit. Would you prefer a grayer black?
Not talking about calibration, that's another level technology that we probably shouldn't dive into atm, and brings in quite a few more variables. Just the colors of light being emitted and the colors perceived on the other side.
Consider this: human eyes are "glossy".
Comment speaks for itself. What is true black? 0 nit. Would you prefer a grayer black?
Not talking about calibration, that's another level technology that we probably shouldn't dive into atm, and brings in quite a few more variables. Just the colors of light being emitted and the colors perceived on the other side.
Consider this: human eyes are "glossy".
To clarify what i meant, i mean blacks in an artwork sense.
What I should have said - tonal gradients are more accurately represented...
remember the point about Pantones, you can argue as much science as you want, but real life experience has always proved to me that the anti glare screens i've used outperform the glossy ones on colour accuracy for design/print etc
What I should have said - tonal gradients are more accurately represented...
remember the point about Pantones, you can argue as much science as you want, but real life experience has always proved to me that the anti glare screens i've used outperform the glossy ones on colour accuracy for design/print etc
They should, as aforementioned in a previous post. No one is making those quality displays with glossy screens, it wouldn't sell. But if you took the same display, carved out the matte cover (impossible without bricking the thing) and remanufactured it with your own homemade glossy screen, it'd show the colors more accurately. Glossy is meant to reproduce a "no protective layer" look, but the smooth surface ends up creating glare.
The matte displays are superior not because they're matte, but because of the internal displays themselves. Matte is just the finish on it. The true magic is what happens behind that matte layer.
Why are displays made in matte? Because it's more practical for use. What good is a screen if 80% of it reflected the colors perfectly, but the other 20% (and radiating outwards to affect all 100%) is just a horrible white splotch from the the dude across the hall watching pron?
You're basically telling me a car's fast because it's red. And your proof in this case would be because the fastest car in the world is red, therefore red = faster than any other color. There's no logical precedence in this statement.
If you STILL don't understand after all this time, I really don't know what to say.
The matte displays are superior not because they're matte, but because of the internal displays themselves. Matte is just the finish on it. The true magic is what happens behind that matte layer.
Why are displays made in matte? Because it's more practical for use. What good is a screen if 80% of it reflected the colors perfectly, but the other 20% (and radiating outwards to affect all 100%) is just a horrible white splotch from the the dude across the hall watching pron?
You're basically telling me a car's fast because it's red. And your proof in this case would be because the fastest car in the world is red, therefore red = faster than any other color. There's no logical precedence in this statement.
If you STILL don't understand after all this time, I really don't know what to say.
I see your points no doubt, but at the end of the day we're comparing the mbp glossy and hi-res.
I've seen both (calibrated with a very expensive unit) side by side and the colour is more accurate on the anti-glare. I doubt you've been in the same situation in a real world environment (forgive me if i'm wrong) so only have the science to fall back on but it really is as simple as that for me.
So, to wrap up - in my opinion, based on real world industry experience, i'd say (along with most other designers) if you want to do colour work on your mbp, get the anti-glare.
over and out.
I've seen both (calibrated with a very expensive unit) side by side and the colour is more accurate on the anti-glare. I doubt you've been in the same situation in a real world environment (forgive me if i'm wrong) so only have the science to fall back on but it really is as simple as that for me.
So, to wrap up - in my opinion, based on real world industry experience, i'd say (along with most other designers) if you want to do colour work on your mbp, get the anti-glare.
over and out.
I actually had done no research into this matter prior to your comments, only that most members stated for colour accurate work they use matte screens. After researching the topic i regret to have judged your comments on inaccurate sources. Glossy Screens are more colour accurate then matte. Matte screens diffuse the light to prevent reflections where as glossy screens are polarized glass. Here is an interesting article discussing the topic. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-macbook-laptop,2130-4.html
The only time matte screens are more accurate is when you are printing prints and non-gloss paper is used.
I see you changed your argument, that's fine. Matte is better for productivity. I've mentioned that several times. Again, to reiterate, I have a matte for that exact reason.
Just saying, glossy = more accurate truer colors. Not so much science as it is common sense.
EDIT: Meant for user "jogl". Blah, slow typer. Still getting accustomed to these keys.
Just saying, glossy = more accurate truer colors. Not so much science as it is common sense.
EDIT: Meant for user "jogl". Blah, slow typer. Still getting accustomed to these keys.